A defense of marriage

[Khendra]

And I'm a woman agreeing with it. Your point?

 

[Pinkie B]

I feel the same way - but sad thing is that it takes both working together and it's hard to find that today. If men loved their wives as it states in the Bible - to love them as Christ loves the church. Jesus gave his life for the church. If men loved their wives so much that they would pretty much devote their life to the well being of his family, it would be easier for the woman to submit. Because if he gave his all to her she's going to want to give her all to him.
There are some here that seem to have a very solid marriage and I admire that. But it always takes both to make it work. And it actually only takes 1 to make it not.

That describes my marriage perfectly -- except for the submission part. I went into it with 100% never-gonna-give-up intentions and my husband just learned that he could take advantage of me by not trying so hard. He learned that he could abuse me and my friends and that I would always try to forgive him and clean up his mess because I was trying to make the marriage work.

Hardest lesson of my life (cost me my religion and most of my identity) was just as you said: it takes two to make a marriage work, but only one to destroy it.

 

[Pinkie B]

And I'm a woman agreeing with it. Your point?

Not being @Gracey I can only guess the point but I imagine its expanded version goes something like this:

Most of Christian literature, and in fact most of most religious literature, is written by men. Often that literature has plenty to say about what women should or should not, can and can not do. However many women, in particular those who have had the opportunity to experience life outside of those constructs, would find them skewed away from their own personal truths. Thus, by pointing out that the passage was probably written by a man Gracey is implying that his imperatives do not coincide with her own experience of truth about women in relationships.

 

[Autistamatic]

The King James bible is the volume on which contemporary protestant Christian scripture is credited with being based. It was completed in 1611 under the oversight of a man who was highly threatened by the memory and achievements of his female predecessor and was desperate to prove his worth to subjects who hated him for being a Scot. A man who's last male equivalent seceded from the Christian church of the time so he could practice philandery without recrimination. The Church of England, the first dominant protestant faith, was founded to allow a king to practice divorce. He even appointed himself head of the new church.
Henry VIII decided that the existing "word of God" didn't apply to him so he had it rewritten to suit his desires in the "Great Bible" of 1535.

His daughter, Elizabeth I presided over an age of great discovery and didn't like her Dad's version so had it rewritten again as the "Bishop's Bible" in 1568. Of course that was shortly after the Calvinists had written their version of a protestant bible as the "Geneva Bible" which they claimed was the definitive one, and was directly translated from the original Greek texts that were written several hundred years after Jesus' life.

Then in the early 17th century the head of the church and state (James VI of Scotland and James I of England - this was before the "UK" existed, so 2 kings for the price of 1) was facing rising unpopularity and was under pressure from flagellating puritans who were significant in the nobility and were his means of retaining power, so he had it rewritten again to please them. In 1611 the King James Bible was completed after 7 years, having been written by celibate men who had no contact with women (monks) at the behest and supervision of ungodly men who had an axe to grind against women, and 47 advisors - the "consultants" of their day. This is the definitive version of the Bible we often think we know today. Written 1600 years after the events it describes, translated from translations and definitely better and more accurate than all the previous accurate and definitive versions that came before.

Until it was edited and revised in 1769 to suit the new fangled printing presses so it could be mass produced. Blayney dropped a few books he didn't think were important, rearranged some bits, changed a few words that seemed a bit too 17th century to him and called it the "Standard Text". Sadly for him, by this time, after 150 years of calling it the "King James" version, the name had kind of stuck so Blayney faded into the background, largely forgotten, but at least his new complete, apart from the bits he left out and the bits he changed from the previous absolutely definitively accurate and immutable version became the one that was taken all over the world by protestant pilgrims and missionaries from then on.

So which version of the bible, if any, contains the "literal" word of God, sufficient to cause half of humanity to be submissive to the other?

 

[Pats]

I typically use the NASB (New American Standard Bible) but I have other translations as well and often compare. I've done my own studies and research on Bible translations and how they were translated, how the books were decided upon, etc. Very interesting study.

 

[Pats]

I might add that the original texts were decided upon based on certain criteria. Proven to be written by one of the Apostles by witnesses that knew them. And these books were being used by the early churches from the letters and writings from the Apostles that were grouped together in the first century. They had to be careful because there were many 'false' teachers trying to infiltrate and change the word to mislead people.

 

[Autistamatic]

I did a great deal of study when I was trying to find a religion I could believe in too and read of the same stories about verification. What I could not reconcile is that every "original" that exists is different to the others, sometimes in minor but also in major details of wording. The oldest fragments we know of, found in the 20thC are of, if I remember correctly, bits of Ephesians dated between 180-220 AD which are a good century after any of the apostles could possibly have survived. I hope that originals from a period that is viable and verified as you describe can be found so a definitive new testament can be directly translated and remove all the doubts and interpretations.
As you know I have no disrespect for people of faith but I have to ask questions if ever I am to truly understand why you believe and how. Even the Quran which has no gaps in it's lineage is widely open to some interpretation but at least texts from the prophets lifetime survive.

 

[Khendra]

The translation type can be a divider among denominational lines, too. I used to attend a fundamentalist Baptist church who used only the KJV. I've since been confirmed and have been attending a Missouri Synod Lutheran church for over a year, and they are willing to use translations other than the KJV.

 

[Autistamatic]

I know that religious people in the US can be very sensitive to atheists. I've seen some of the fights online, but atheism is the default here in the UK. There are more atheists than all the religions combined. I've always been very curious about religion though and have studied it on and off all my life.
Please understand that when I ask questions I never seek to undermine or belittle, only to understand more. US Christianity is unlike any in the world and is a fascinating microcosm within the faith community.

 

[Khendra]

I know that religious people in the US can be very sensitive to atheists. I've seen some of the fights online, but atheism is the default here in the UK. There are more atheists than all the religions combined. I've always been very curious about religion though and have studied it on and off all my life.
Please understand that when I ask questions I never seek to undermine or belittle, only to understand more. US Christianity is unlike any in the world and is a fascinating microcosm within the faith community.

Not a problem. As mentioned in the original post, my husband himself is not theistic, so I know the position where you're coming from. I was even agnostic for a time in my life (2002-2005) before returning to the faith.

 

[tw3]

Hold Topic

 

[Pats]

Back to the original subject, I think the term submissive is what seems to be the objection. The greek text does not use the term submission and the closest translation is 'subject to'. There were some very independent and strong women mentioned in the New Testament who worked outside their homes. I believe what is meant is more along the lines of being as one as the Church is to Jesus. I always thought it was interesting that women are told to respect their husbands and men to love their wives. We tend to see it in the context of serving and being subservient and that's not what it means.

 

[Pats]

The thing about Christianity is that it's based on faith. If it has to be proven, it's no longer faith. I don't know many people who insist on proof that their dad is really their dad - they just believe it. Though a few times I did ask my mom and was a tad disappointed when she said, yes, he's my real dad. My faith does not come from what other's have told me or, actually not from what I've read in the Bible. I read the Bible BECAUSE of my faith. And because of my faith, I believe that the God of all creation and able to control all things will also keep it possible for those with faith to have access to His word. My proof lies in my own life because I do know how He has worked in my life and made it possible for me to survive it. And every day I see and know it.

 

[Tom]

I was always uncomfortable with that principle. It didn't mesh with my feelings on equality. But I thought it had some logic based on my observation that units/groups don't function well with divided leadership. As an example I was in a situation where due to 'who was incharge' squabbles half our unit was preparing to deploy to the desert and the other half erroneously to Europe.

Families aren't military units or companies, but there still are tasks to do, roles to fill, etc. What I realized was that what really works best for us is to divide it based more on people's strengths rather then gender/position in the family. Women (at least in some places) are raised the same way, in the same schools and can do anything men can. My wife for instance was in the military. Her decision making skills are often better then mine. I like cleaning more... Its not so cut and dry.

 

[Khendra]

The thing about Christianity is that it's based on faith. If it has to be proven, it's no longer faith. I don't know many people who insist on proof that their dad is really their dad - they just believe it. Though a few times I did ask my mom and was a tad disappointed when she said, yes, he's my real dad. My faith does not come from what other's have told me or, actually not from what I've read in the Bible. I read the Bible BECAUSE of my faith. And because of my faith, I believe that the God of all creation and able to control all things will also keep it possible for those with faith to have access to His word. My proof lies in my own life because I do know how He has worked in my life and made it possible for me to survive it. And every day I see and know it.

This is correct. I recently read that Billy Graham, before he became such a well-known preacher, actually admitted to really struggling with some of the more difficult passages of the Bible that would theoretically seem to be against science and whatnot. Yet he realized that he either had to have faith in God and the Bible, or not, and he went with faith. The rest is history.

I still sometimes have all kinds of questions and wonder about all kinds of things. Yet in the end, it continues to boil down to faith no matter how much I tear various issues apart or how many angles I try to look at something from. I can lack faith for brief periods of time, but when I really get down to it, I cannot conceptualize that existence has much meaning without a higher power, and so I always come back to faith despite strivings. I realize not everyone comes to this same conclusion, and I also realize there are other competing faiths out there. But the monotheistic God seems to have the most power, the most sense, the Christian faith the highest morality, Christ the perfect Remedy for fallen man. It's no surprise Christianity has the broadest reach of all the faiths. Sure, we have all kinds of sub-issues and denominations and competing claims of what constitutes true Christianity; these are enormous challenges that have led to deep division and tragically, at times, even bloodshed and wars. But everything in life has a challenge, a fight, or a struggle, and no group or ideology is exempt. I always weigh the options against various alternatives, and I just don't see anything effectively replacing Christianity as better. Non-faith options are just individuals attempting to rationalize and do what's right in their own eyes, and there's no order or consistency to that.

So yeah, faith.

 

[Pats]

There are many more, but I think this is interesting: 5 skeptics that tried to disprove the Bible...…...
They, more than didn't believe it, they attempted to give proof that it's false.
1. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was a highly respected archaeologist (so much so that he was knighted) from Scotland. He set out to prove the historical inaccuracies of the book of Acts. Ramsay thought this book was the most ridiculous of all the New Testament. 15 years he spent researching and digging, only to end up being convinced of the incredible accuracy of the book, converted to Christianity, and called Luke (who wrote Acts) one of the greatest historians to ever live. His has written several books on the subject, which have yet to be refuted. His work caused an outcry from atheists because they had been eagerly awaiting his results in disproving the validity of the book.

2. Frank Morrison was an English journalist and author who set out to disprove the myth of Christianity over over 80 years ago. His book “Who moved the stone?” is a classic and has led many people to Christ.

3. Lee Strobel was a journalist for the Chicago Tribune who set out to disprove Christianity, but ended up becoming a Christian and created the famous “Case for…” series.

4. Josh McDowell set out to write a paper in college to expose Christianity as a myth, but ended up being so convinced that he became a Christian himself and wrote the influential book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.

5. Andre Kole was a giant in the world of magic, creating tricks for the greatest magicians in the world including making the statue of liberty disappear for David Copperfield. He was commissioned to study the miracles of the bible to expose them as magic tricks and thus disprove its legitimacy. Through this investigation, Andre Kole became a Christian and has since dedicated himself to spreading the Gospel via the art of magic, performing in more countries than any other magician in history.

 

[Autistamatic]

By that logic I should stop being open minded and accepting and try to disprove you good people!

I'm not out to disprove anything, I'm interested in WHY you have faith. I can't do it - I've opened myself up to it and nobody - not Jesus, not Allah, Zeus, Odin or Ra, wants me for a Sunbeam. I just can't do religion.

Here's a question for you. You're US citizens and Christians. If you'd been born in Iran say, or Pakistan, would you believe just as hard in Allah & Islam and take the Quran as the literal word of God? If not, I'd be fascinated to know why. I never get to ask questions like this so thanks for giving me the opportunity to

 

[Khendra]

@Autistamatic it's a tough question with no easy answers. I do know that there are some Muslims who have had visions of Jesus and convert because of that. But statistically, sure, most there are Muslims because that's the majority religion in those countries, and that's how those people are usually raised. Same in the Asian countries except they tend toward Buddhism or Hinduism because of the historical predominance of those religions there. I guess that's why Jesus gave Christians the Great Commission. There's much debate over how people believe, soteriology, monergism vs synergism etc. But wherever one falls on that spectrum, it's clear Christians would have some mandate to explain their beliefs to other people far and wide. Even us US European Christian stocks were once a bunch of pagans, and how soon the Anti-Semites forget that...

 

[Pats]

By that logic I should stop being open minded and accepting and try to disprove you good people!

I'm not out to disprove anything, I'm interested in WHY you have faith. I can't do it - I've opened myself up to it and nobody - not Jesus, not Allah, Zeus, Odin or Ra, wants me for a Sunbeam. I just can't do religion.

Here's a question for you. You're US citizens and Christians. If you'd been born in Iran say, or Pakistan ,ouldy wbelieve just as hard in Allah s& Iand take the Quran as the literal word of God? If not, I'd be fascinated to know why. I never get to ask questions like this so thanks for giving me the opportunity to

I've asked myself the same thing before and I don't know. There are some who were raised in other religions that have become Christians - and have enough faith that they are being persecuted but refuse to deny their faith in Jesus. I would like to think I would be one of those - but I can't answer it for certain.
My second husband was an atheist and something happened involving myself and he stood back and watched and said to me that there was definitely a higher power watching over me that night because it should have ended badly and no feasible explanation as to why it didn't. And there have been times in my life I tried to get away from religion, but find that impossible. You know - maybe I would still be a Christian even if I had been raised something else. Because I do not believe the same as my parents or how I was brought up. Not even close. Well, closer than Muslim, but still almost opposite of how I was raised.

 

[Lysander]

I'm an atheist and for different reasons than you have described, I also agree that marriage has deep meaningful value.

A concern I hear a lot is that people think they absolutely must become wealthy, and simply must spend six figures on the wedding. Otherwise they think they aren't "ready".

For a generation who generally believe they have left traditional ideas in the past where they belong, this need for pageantry is a pretty silly example to the contrary.

In contrast to this approach, I find that marriage can be extremely empowering to young people, and to all people.

Distracted by boyfriends, girlfriends, dating? Not if you're married.

Feeling unmotivated in school or career? Building a future with your spouse gives meaning to those pursuits.

Burdened by the cost of living? Double your income and work together with your spouse to create a comfortable lifestyle for each other.

Is life an unpredictable circus of endless suffering? An unconditional partner could be there for you when need them most, and vice versa.